IPOB Demands Legal Explanation After High Court Ruling on Kanu
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has formally challenged the legal foundation of a recent Federal High Court judgment concerning its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, calling on Justice James Omotosho to clarify which law underpinned his decision.
In a statement issued by spokesperson Emma Powerful, IPOB said it will publicly scrutinize what it sees as serious constitutional concerns in the ruling. The group argued that during the trial, there was no presentation of weapons or incriminating materials, nor any witness testimony alleging that Kanu committed crimes under Nigerian or international law.
IPOB reiterated that its advocacy for self-determination is grounded in recognised international legal instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
They insisted that pushing for a referendum or political agitation should not be treated as a criminal offence.
The group also noted that Kanu was already in detention when certain security incidents occurred in the South-East, arguing that this fact must be weighed when assessing his culpability.
Pointing to Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no one may be convicted of a crime unless the offence is clearly defined in a written law, IPOB demanded that the court specify which statutory provision formed the basis of its conviction — and whether that law is still valid.
The group said it would continue to examine the judgment, raising what it regards as both procedural and constitutional issues that affect human rights, judicial integrity, and the rule of law.
Finally, IPOB reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful struggle, stating that it will continue to engage international bodies through legal and diplomatic means.